From Lambeau to Lombardi, Holmgren, McCarthy and LaFleur and from Starr to Favre, Rodgers and now Jordan Love we’re talking Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers football. This Packers Forum is the place to talk NFL football and everything Packers. So, pull up a keyboard, make yourself at home and let’s talk some Packers football.
Maybe MLF can adjust his scheme to where talented pass catchers cam focus on being playmakers and stay on the field so they pose a threat on every play??
Starting to sound like McCarthy who hated Aaron jones and famously said being a running back was more than being able to run the ball.
An elite WR who can block is a bonus. Just give me someone who can get open and catch the ball for now. We don’t have any of those guys at the moment
Yeah, I would say this. Of course its better than not to have versatile than one-dimensional guys. And frankly LaFleur does a great job playing to players strengths. I don't think he could have gotten a whole lot more out of Lazard and Adams, polar opposite players, by letting them do what they do.
Not taking WR's to play WR because they don't specialize in run blocking is likely a foolish idea. And frankly we have those guys, Lafleur wants a basketball team at WR, not juts 5 power forwards.
The thing we are lacking now is a WR who specializes in route running and catching.
Maybe MLF can adjust his scheme to where talented pass catchers cam focus on being playmakers and stay on the field so they pose a threat on every play??
Starting to sound like McCarthy who hated Aaron jones and famously said being a running back was more than being able to run the ball.
An elite WR who can block is a bonus. Just give me someone who can get open and catch the ball for now. We don’t have any of those guys at the moment
This issue is ridiculous when it comes to drafting an elite wr. Baffling take.
Not saying don't take them, just that they all have some significant drawback for what this team looks for in the position. Not great fits, but if actually available at our pick, might be necessary.
Also, if you're not gonna do the scheme prescribed things well, kind of have to make up for it in other respects. Adams was not good at blocking, but the receiving more than made up for that. I like Olave and Wilson well enough, don't see either as "elite" though.
“Most other nations don't allow a terrorist to be their leader.”
“... Yet so many allow their leaders to be terrorists.”—Magneto
Not saying don't take them, just that they all have some significant drawback for what this team looks for in the position. Not great fits, but if actually available at our pick, might be necessary.
Also, if you're not gonna do the scheme prescribed things well, kind of have to make up for it in other respects. Adams was not good at blocking, but the receiving more than made up for that. I like Olave and Wilson well enough, don't see either as "elite" though.
Did u think Adams was going to be elite out of college? If the Packers draft a wr in the first round I am guessing his blocking prowess will be well down on the list of attributes.
blah blah blah, DR J described Adams to ya and ya don't even know it, He didn't block much, all he did was what where trying to replicate in this draft, a guy that in some fashion beats press, separates quick, catches the ball and gets yac.
I don't really understand all this pigeon holing, it seems rather then looking who will fit, people are hell bent on proving who wont, seriously we have the most ability in the league at making most of these receiver work very well, what am I missing?
I think people are not recognizing that none of these top 12 or so receivers are at there ceiling, some far from it, so the ones that could add a few lbs probably will, those needing to improve some tech probably will to, those that need to learn better blocking tech, same thing, the highest ranking ones already have most of this fixed so they go early, but they all have talent or they wouldn't be ranked top 60.
Not saying don't take them, just that they all have some significant drawback for what this team looks for in the position. Not great fits, but if actually available at our pick, might be necessary.
Also, if you're not gonna do the scheme prescribed things well, kind of have to make up for it in other respects. Adams was not good at blocking, but the receiving more than made up for that. I like Olave and Wilson well enough, don't see either as "elite" though.
Did u think Adams was going to be elite out of college? If the Packers draft a wr in the first round I am guessing his blocking prowess will be well down on the list of attributes.
Not saying don't take them, just that they all have some significant drawback for what this team looks for in the position. Not great fits, but if actually available at our pick, might be necessary.
Also, if you're not gonna do the scheme prescribed things well, kind of have to make up for it in other respects. Adams was not good at blocking, but the receiving more than made up for that. I like Olave and Wilson well enough, don't see either as "elite" though.
Did u think Adams was going to be elite out of college? If the Packers draft a wr in the first round I am guessing his blocking prowess will be well down on the list of attributes.
But that is not what is being discussed at all. The large theme of the forum this year is immediate impact. Hence we must go round 1 as that is percieved as immediate impact.
Davante Adams didn't start having any real impact until around 2.5 seasons into his career. That would be considered a failure from this draft.
Not saying don't take them, just that they all have some significant drawback for what this team looks for in the position. Not great fits, but if actually available at our pick, might be necessary.
Also, if you're not gonna do the scheme prescribed things well, kind of have to make up for it in other respects. Adams was not good at blocking, but the receiving more than made up for that. I like Olave and Wilson well enough, don't see either as "elite" though.
Did u think Adams was going to be elite out of college? If the Packers draft a wr in the first round I am guessing his blocking prowess will be well down on the list of attributes.
But that is not what is being discussed at all. The large theme of the forum this year is immediate impact. Hence we must go round 1 as that is percieved as immediate impact.
Davante Adams didn't start having any real impact until around 2.5 seasons into his career. That would be considered a failure from this draft.
I only brought up adams bc the poster already deemed wilson and olave not elite. I understand the topic.
I don't want to go back and see if this was discussed, so laying this out there.
Packers are trading up in the first. But it is NOT for a WR. Who do you target? Has to be someone under 22 to fit Packers tendencies (so no Jordan Davis).
Kayvon/Hutchinson/Walker? Cross/Ekwonu/Neal/Penning? Stingley/Sauce/Hamilton? I think this about covers it for options, right?
I don't want to go back and see if this was discussed, so laying this out there.
Packers are trading up in the first. But it is NOT for a WR. Who do you target? Has to be someone under 22 to fit Packers tendencies (so no Jordan Davis).
Kayvon/Hutchinson/Walker? Cross/Ekwonu/Neal/Penning? Stingley/Sauce/Hamilton? I think this about covers it for options, right?
There are only 3 players I would be willing to trade up for (reaslistically)
1. Jordan Davis
2. Jameson Williams
3. Jermaine Johnson
Only Williams is below the age of 22 so I guess that answers that question.
I don't want to go back and see if this was discussed, so laying this out there.
Packers are trading up in the first. But it is NOT for a WR. Who do you target? Has to be someone under 22 to fit Packers tendencies (so no Jordan Davis).
Kayvon/Hutchinson/Walker? Cross/Ekwonu/Neal/Penning? Stingley/Sauce/Hamilton? I think this about covers it for options, right?
There are only 3 players I would be willing to trade up for (reaslistically)
1. Jordan Davis
2. Jameson Williams
3. Jermaine Johnson
Only Williams is below the age of 22 so I guess that answers that question.
So based on my question, you wouldn't grab anyone. I said no WRs. But if you HAD to pick someone meeting those qualifications, who would it be? Would you grab Kayvon if he's there between 6 and 11? Or would you grab an OT or DB instead?
I don't want to go back and see if this was discussed, so laying this out there.
Packers are trading up in the first. But it is NOT for a WR. Who do you target? Has to be someone under 22 to fit Packers tendencies (so no Jordan Davis).
Kayvon/Hutchinson/Walker? Cross/Ekwonu/Neal/Penning? Stingley/Sauce/Hamilton? I think this about covers it for options, right?
I am genuinely uninterested in all of those prospects as a trade up option. I couldn’t pick one. None of them match value and breed closely enough. We don’t need a starting tackle or a starting boundary CB. We’d be trading up to full a future need.
Are those guys likely upgrades for us? Some, probably. But you trade up to make your beds match the value. And the places where we need starter are WR and DT. Arguably ILB2. Arguably a slot defender, but even that is only dime or injury situation.
I would only trade up for a DT or a WR. The rest you take if they fall to you.
I don't want to go back and see if this was discussed, so laying this out there.
Packers are trading up in the first. But it is NOT for a WR. Who do you target? Has to be someone under 22 to fit Packers tendencies (so no Jordan Davis).
Kayvon/Hutchinson/Walker? Cross/Ekwonu/Neal/Penning? Stingley/Sauce/Hamilton? I think this about covers it for options, right?
I am genuinely uninterested in all of those prospects as a trade up option. I couldn’t pick one. None of them match value and breed closely enough. We don’t need a starting tackle or a starting boundary CB. We’d be trading up to full a future need.
Are those guys likely upgrades for us? Some, probably. But you trade up to make your beds match the value. And the places where we need starter are WR and DT. Arguably ILB2. Arguably a slot defender, but even that is only dime or injury situation.
I would only trade up for a DT or a WR. The rest you take if they fall to you.
I get what you are saying. And maybe this just isn't the draft to have the capital to possibly go high. But if Gutey thinks a Kayvon will be a game changing Edge or Cross will be a 10 year starting OT, regardless if its a need this year (because everything is a need next year), you go get him.
Gutey says it over and over, the draft isn't used to fix this year problems. That's why I still think anything is on the table. But I know no-one seems to be that high on any of the top 10 guys, compared to past years.
I agree paco, if they think they can grab anyone they think has real HOF potential. Or all pro.
Go get him.
I’d say short of QB, RB, TE, C or ILB.
CB would be a weird move too, I think we need a lot of depth, but trade up from 22 would confuse me. Edge I’m fine with. We need snaps today and possible starter next year.
I mean, this isn’t a great “HOF” kind of draft. No one screams that potential to me, which is why the top of the draft still looks like a crap shoot 24 hours out.
I know Gutey isn’t 100% with me because of the Jordan Love trade up, but my criteria for trading up is:
1) The best available player on my board is the end of a tier—ahead of the other remaining players on the board by a notable/significant margin.
2) The best available player my board fills a roster need.
That’s it. That’s my criteria. Any other trade up doesn’t make sense to me. You move around the board specifically to marry value with roster. If you don’t move around the board, you have to hope that your highest rated players got the roster beds or make a tough call. If you move, you do it to make your roster make sense.
More later in the draft? Sure. Trade up to fill future needs. Those are also roster needs. But I’m not moving to the top ten to draft a backup. Period. Ever.
I agree paco, if they think they can grab anyone they think has real HOF potential. Or all pro.
Go get him.
I’d say short of QB, RB, TE, C or ILB.
CB would be a weird move too, I think we need a lot of depth, but trade up from 22 would confuse me. Edge I’m fine with. We need snaps today and possible starter next year.
I do think CB is less likely as a trade up scenario. But having 3 great young corners is a great thing to have. Rarely do you not have 3 on the field anymore.
Rasul's deal won't keep him around for more than a year or 2 most likely.
I think if we do it, it's Edge or OT, and maybe WR if they are in love with Williams or London (I don't think its anyone else for trade up).
I mean, this isn’t a great “HOF” kind of draft. No one screams that potential to me, which is why the top of the draft still looks like a crap shoot 24 hours out.
I know Gutey isn’t 100% with me because of the Jordan Love trade up, but my criteria for trading up is:
1) The best available player on my board is the end of a tier—ahead of the other remaining players on the board by a notable/significant margin.
2) The best available player my board fills a roster need.
That’s it. That’s my criteria. Any other trade up doesn’t make sense to me. You move around the board specifically to marry value with roster. If you don’t move around the board, you have to hope that your highest rated players got the roster beds or make a tough call. If you move, you do it to make your roster make sense.
More later in the draft? Sure. Trade up to fill future needs. Those are also roster needs. But I’m not moving to the top ten to draft a backup. Period. Ever.
All 11 picks are tradeable. It will be interesting to see how much GB moves around.
He didn't block much, all he did was what where trying to replicate in this draft, a guy that in some fashion beats press, separates quick, catches the ball and gets yac.
